The Wall Street Journal reports that owners have stockpiled enough money to get through a year of no football. Players say this shows an intent for the lock out. Schefter says that a decision on the lock out should take about a month, although there is a chance it could happen a week or so sooner. He speculates that if the judge rules for players, they can go back to work, and it is likely it will be under last year's rules. This would mean that FA, as well as trades, could begin at that time. Would that not be something? A "Feeding Frenzy" for fans, with FA, trades, and the draft being bunched together. WOW!!! We would all forget about lawyers money, greed, and anything else not football related. Forums would be lit up as we have never seen them.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-05-24-nfl-supreme-court-analysis_N.htm Here's a good read on the US Supreme Court decision. It was only about some T'shirts but, spoke volumes in saying that there are 32 "different" enterprises, not one. Not what the owners were looking for.
In reading that the NFLPA is now advising the incoming rookies to boycott the draft, it seems to me that act in itself proves the decertification is a shame...if there is no longer an NFLPA, why are they giving advice to the rookies ?? Or to any other player for that matter ?? Too bad I'm not a judge....this act alone tells me the actions taken by the NFLPA are a sham....
They are still a trade union, and are able to provide advice. I'm not sure why any incoming rookie would participate in a draft when there is no CBA. Just sign with whichever owner offers you the most.
Players are trying to justify this by saying that the daft violates anti-trust laws, and is illegal, which is included in their suit. On the other side, players are going to agree to lower rookie salaries. The whole thing is childish and silly. I feel bad for the kids and thier families.
Any smart business, hell, any smart person, "stockpiles" money in case of hard times. The players should have done the same.
A rainy day fund for "hard times" and stockpiling money for an entire season off are two completely different things, IMO.
Yeah I don't know of any business that wouldn't prepare for the worst case scenario. I'm sure most players stockpiled their money as well.
Good point, but I guess it really all depends on how long the owners have been stockpiling money and if there's any way to prove that lockout was the plan from day 1. Doubt there is anyway to do that, so I see your point.
I disagree. A good business, and good businessmen, prepare for the worst. Again, smart businesses and smart people prepare for the unexpected and/or worst case scenario. If I lost my job today I could afford to keep living the same lifestyle I do now, plus pay all of my bills for at least a year without having to touch my retirement funds. There is nothing malicious or wrong with that.
The players will cave because most can't afford to miss even one paycheck. I'm sure some were smart with their money, but when 78% of all NFL players are bankrupt within 2 years after retirement I find it hard to believe that most have been saving up for a "rainy day".
I'm sure the owners have been "stockpiling", or SAVING, money for decades. You don't become a billionaire by blowing your money.
No, you become a billionaire by investing your money back into your company or putting money to work for you in other investment opportunities. Which is very different than keeping large sums of money liquid in anticipation of a complete shut down. All that aside, I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong for the owners to save money in anticipation of bad times. But you have to realize that for a billionaire or corporation to stash money away for a rainy day is a lot easier than a player, especially if it's a newer player on the lower end of the pay scale. So legality aside, I think it's wrong to just say the NFL teams saved money all players should have too. Some players will be fine, others won't either because they don't have the luxury you and I might have had with being educated about money or they just haven't had time to earn enough to save for significant time off.
lol...investing your money is saving your money. If you just put your money in a mattress, and don't invest it, inflation will slowly eat it away. And save the sob story about the player on the "low" end of the pay scale. They come straight out of school and earn at LEAST $350,000. If thye can't save any of that they are stupid. The average FAMILY earns about $50K a year in this country. That means they make 7x's that amount their first year. And that's the bare minimum. No, if the players haven't saved any, which most likely the did not, they are stupid.
This is true. However, when the owners went to TV, getting a guarantee of $4 Billion if games are not played, while games are still being played, they tried to screw their "partners." I don't see how else you can look at that. TV revenue was a major part in the players 60%, and was for both sides providing a "product" which they are making a ton of money on. Both sides provide the game we love. Unless there is a CBA, there is no game. Owners securing money for a lock out was not the right thing to do, as I believe courts will agree. IMHO, it did show intent of looking to a lock out.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you clarify? Right now it seems like you are trying to join two things not really related?
Saving moey, when you are a Billionaire, is somewhat easier than saving money when you are "thousandaire."
It really depends on your definition of investing. Yeah, stashing money away in a CD, brokerage account, mutual fund, IRA, etc is technically both saving and investing money. But billionaires and corporations invest much differently than an individual. They purchase assets, companies, etc. They use money to expand their own business. Stashing liquid money away in the event of a shutdown looks much different than this kind of "saving / investing" and it would be obvious to any accountant. Not trying to say it's legal or illegal, just stating the facts. EXACTLY. They come straight out of school making a large sum of money and placed in an environment where spending in excess is the norm. Stupid is an unfair word to use. These are kids who simply have not been educated in money and finance. You have to try and look through someone else's lenses every now and again. I can see by your username and tag that you were / are a marine. (BTW, thank you for your service! ) Now I don't know this for sure, but while you're serving your country in foreign lands and getting paid (not as much as you deserve), it might be easier to save up some money when you have few expenses. At least this is what I've heard from other service men and women. It might be more difficult for someone else to save up that kind of rainy day fund while having normal day to day living expenses. All I'm trying to say here is everyone's situation is different. Not everyone has had the same education about money, and not everyone has the same opportunities to save. To compare everyone without factoring in their own unique circumstances is unfair in my opinion.
The owners got a $4B guarantee from TV for a lockout. Judge said not the right thing to do, and ruled against it. IMO, that does show intent, which will be decided on April 6. It is definitely related, as you will see.
Players are funny. It couldn't possibly be preparation for the possibility of a strike/lockout, no of course not. Id' like to ask the players if any of them have money in the bank. They must spend 100% of all their money, or it' shows an intent to strike.
Its related in they broke their agreement with the union as the judge ruled. The NFL trying to cut the players out of the deal I don't think speaks to intent of them not expecting/trying to negotiate a deal. It certainly didn't help I'm sure.
Agree to a point. It is a whole lot easier to negotiate with a $4b guarantee backing you up. When that was taken, the owners did make some movement in the negotiations. Based on prior court rulings, Including the US Supreme Court, I have no idea where the owners are going. They cannot win in an anti-trust suit. IF Congress were to get involved, ans ESPN's legal analyst mentioned, they are screwed. No doubt about it. I believe that this was the year that the owners targeted to bust the union. Ain't gonna happen. Smith is playing his cards well. However, he may get more than he bargained for. He may be the one responsible for destroying football as we nw know it. Take away the exemptions, ans we are baseball.
What players spend or save is of no one's concern. Why would anyone care what someone else does with their money? They did not ask for help from TV or anyone. The Billionaire owners did.
so your sayin stringer is that there might be a loop hole that allows Ross to sign Patrick Peterson or Marcel Dareus?
Theoretically if there is no CBA then there is no structure to support a draft. It really depends on what happens in court though, because the judge will likely impose rules that are very close to the rules of the 2010 season.
Well this action is only in response to the owners action of taking away health insurance on the families of players (this happened the other day). I thought that was incredibly petty of the owners, and a nuciance for players who may have a wife or children already in treatment for some kind of illness. Now they may have to change doctors or hospitals, etc. just because the owners acted very, very petty.
They're at war so to speak. All is fair and considering that the players have the upper hand by discontinuing to be a union. The only way to gain the upper hand is to force the players to pony up as much of their own money as possible.
